World Cup: Many of the European teams- France, Belgium, the Netherlands- field teams that look more representative of Africa due to massive immigration. But that leads to the question: if all the teams are composed of a majority of Africans, then what exactly is the point of having a tournament between nations? Sure, the fans in the stands most often represent the ethnic makeup of the countries, and that adds flavor to the tournament: the kilted and often inebriated Scots, the Viking-rowing Norwegians, the Orange-clad Dutch, the English chanting en masse, for example. But the teams on the field are largely becoming our immigrants against your immigrants. Where’s the fun in that? And this isn’t some DEI exercise. No example of meritocracy is more glaring than professional sports. These immigrants, or more likely children of immigrants, are citizens of the country they represent and are qualified to represent that country on the national team based on their excellence in the sport. Kylian Mbappe is one of the most skilled soccer players in the world and represents France on their national team. He was born in France to an Algerian mother and a Cameroonian father and is a French citizen. But he obviously is not ethnically French. That’s not a bad thing, but it does take something away from a sporting competition between nations. On the contrary, Erling Haaland is an international soccer star from Norway and plays for his country. He is a large man by soccer standards, a giant at 6 feet 4 inches, and he sports a long blond mane with shaved sides that would look at home on a Viking ship. Even the official national team photo dressed the team up in Viking garb replete with shields, breastplates, spears, and battle axes. Their fans support their team by simulating synchronized rowing of a longboat to the beat of a drum. Now that’s embracing a national identity. And that’s fun. But the French? How does that joke go? I went to Paris. I saw the Eiffel Tower. I went to the Louvre. I saw Notre Dame. I ate a croissant. And I bought one of those French hats.What do you call them? Oh yeah, a hijab. Ouch. But must progress involve the eradication of the native people and their national identity? I thought we were all critical of the conquest of the indigenous? Don’t we seek to eradicate invasive species? You know, Asian carp, the spotted lanternfly, emerald ash borers, stuff like that. You know, things that breed prolifically, offer no benefit in return, destroy the local habitat, and exhaust resources. Or maybe just a McDonald's franchise on the Champs-Élysées. Does that apply to immigration? Well, apparently, Bo thinks so, and it hasn’t been well received by the left, who opportunistically extrapolate the rantings of a Texas Railroad Commissioner into the platform for the entire Republican Party.
But why shouldn’t we mourn the loss of national or even regional identity? Especially when it seems to go hand in hand with a myriad of things we should all rally against: corruption, crime, increased social programs, and increased taxation… to name a few. It may improve the quality of your soccer team, but it doesn’t necessarily improve the quality of life in your cities. Take the recent uprisings in Paris, for example. And why is it that the left endorses cries from minority groups that they need more people that ‘look like us' in healthcare and in government? As if your physician is somehow more qualified to assess your ailments if they’re of the same ethnicity. Isn’t that itself a racist premise? And as far as your government representative looking like you…well, that appears to be more advantageous when they seek government assistance for the minority groups they represent. That is not government competence; that’s electing a lobbyist. With 60% of the US population identifying as “White”, and with that percentage expected to fall below 50% sometime in the early 2040s, why wouldn’t a member of that group… soon to be a minority…be concerned about representation and shifting demographics? Why is that considered a racist perspective when clearly minority groups that vote strictly along racial lines, or seek out businesses and healthcare providers of the same race, aren’t seen as doing the same thing? Why is it considered racist to object to California providing upwards of $100,000 a year to immigrant families of five when American citizens who have worked their entire lives paying into the system are potentially facing a 20% reduction in Social Security benefits in 2035 as the program exhausts its resources? Every ethnic group or nationality will naturally seek to protect their own interests. Unfortunately, when white people in Europe or the United States engage in such protectionism, or what may be called nationalism, it is twisted by the media into representing white supremacy, fascism, and racism. But what is the end game according to the left? Is it the complete eradication of Western values and culture? Is it some utopian society where all races and ethnicities are represented in equal numbers, with equal pay and access to the same education, healthcare, and housing? Is it Globalism with a Marxist twist, each according to his needs? Impossible. But it seems we are moving toward a proletariat class ruled by government overlords. A recent Pew Research Center survey suggested that many Americans believe government should play a larger role than capitalism, providing affordable housing, access to healthcare, and limiting credit card interest, with a nearly equal divide, with Democrats favoring larger government and Republicans preferring less. This would explain the rise in socialist candidates in the Democratic Party, a development that should concern anyone who has studied history. And where has this proven to be successful? Just slapping the word democrat in front of socialist does not make that system of governance any better, comrades. Can a country survive when it is nearly equally divided between one faction that favors increased government intervention, socialist policies like single-payer healthcare, redistribution of wealth, government control of housing and the government control of property and production with porous borders…… and the other side that favors capitalism, closed borders, limited taxation and a smaller government footprint? And when the socialists seem to favor what was once thought to be unthinkable: defunding the police, disbanding immigration enforcement, opening our borders to unfettered immigration, no identification required for voting, condoning corruption, and the confiscation of private property and businesses, does this not make their “affordability” platform an absurd premise? And into the widening abyss that exists between the parties, you inject immigration and shifting demographics with populations that are not assimilating but coalescing to vote their own representatives into Congress. Gone is the concept of assimilation. One might have to consider that the plan is to introduce nothing but chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment